Syllabus Entrance
Printer Friendly
Email Syllabus
Education Major Version

EDE 380 Literacy for ECE & EED Tchrs
Lofflin, Kathy Ehrig


Mission Statement: The mission of Park University, an entrepreneurial institution of learning, is to provide access to academic excellence, which will prepare learners to think critically, communicate effectively and engage in lifelong learning while serving a global community.

School For Education Mission Statement
The School for Education at Park University, an institution committed to diversity and best practice, prepares educators to be effective school professionals, reflective change agents, and advocates for equity and excellence for all learners.



Vision Statement: Park University will be a renowned international leader in providing innovative educational opportunities for learners within the global society.

School For Education Vision Statement
The School for Education at Park University is to be known as a leader in the preparation of educators who will address the needs, challenges, and possibilities of the 21st century.

Park University School for Education  Conceptual Framework


Course

EDE 380 Literacy for ECE & EED Tchrs

Semester

FA 2009 HO

Faculty

Lofflin, Kathy Ehrig

Title

Associate Professor of Education

Degrees/Certificates

Ph.D., Reading Education, UMKC
M.A., Developmental Reading, UMKC
B.A., Communications, Ottawa University

Office Location

Watson Literacy Center, MA 330A

Office Hours

Tuesdays and Thursdays, 7:30-8:30; 11:30-1:30, Wednesdays  12:00-2:00; available other times by appointment

Daytime Phone

(816) 584-6419

E-Mail

klofflin@park.edu

Semester Dates

August 17-Dec. 11

Class Days

--T-R--

Class Time

8:45 - 11:25 AM

Prerequisites

Admission to Teacher Education, and must be concurrently enrolled in Practicum A.

Credit Hours

6


Textbook:

COURSE TEXTBOOK(S):

All of the following are required and are necessary to do well in this course.

 

 

ü      Fox, Barbara J.  (2005).  Phonics for the teacher of reading (9th ed.).

             Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Merrill.  ISBN 0-13-117799-0

 

ü      Vacca, Jo Anne L., Vacca, Richard T., Gove, Mary K., Burkey, Linda, Lenhart, Lisa A., & McKeon,

 Christine  (2009).   Reading and learning to read (7th ed.).  Boston:  Allyn & Bacon. 

ISBN 13-978-0-205-57112-3

 

ü      Wilde, Sandra.  (2000).  Miscue analysis made easy:  Building on student strengths. 

            Portsmouth NH:  Heinemann.  ISBN 0-325-00239-8

ü      All Park University teacher candidates seeking certification and licensure must purchase Foliotek, the School for Education’s electronic portfolio system. As purchasing and accessing Foliotek is a multi-step process, please follow these instructions: 

  1. Decide the Contract Period and fee for which you will be paying. Minimally, you must purchase a contract which extends to the year you expect to graduate, however some students purchase a contract extending one year beyond graduation. 

 Contract Period    

 Contract Fee

Per Student (Prepaid)

Cost Breakdown

Per Student, Per Year

 1 year

 $30.00

$30.00

 2 years

 $59.00

$29.50

 3 years

 $87.00

$29.00

 4 years

 $112.00

$28.00

 5 years

$120.00

$24.00

6 years

$125.00

$20.83

  1. Send an email to Carol Williams (carol.williams@park.edu) with the following information:

·        Your Name

·        The Contract Period you wish to purchase

·        Your student identification number

  1. Within a few days, you will receive from Foliotek an email with online purchasing information. Upon receipt of this email, purchase your Foliotek contract.
  2. Upon receipt of your payment, you will receive your login information. You must then send a final email to Carol Williams (carol.williams@park.edu), requesting she provide your current education professors and a academic advisor (list them) access to view your portfolio. It is imperative you complete this final step!!

 

Textbooks can be purchased through the Parkville Bookstore

Additional Resources:

Supplementary resources specifically used or referred to in class:

 

Atwell, N.  (1998).  In the middle:  New understandings about writing, reading, and

            learning (2nd ed.).  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Bell, D., & Jarvis, D.  (2002).  Letting go of “Letter of the Week”.  Primary Voices K-6,

            11(2), 10-25.

 

Carlisle, J.F., & Stone, C. A.  (2005).  Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. 

            Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428-449.

 

Cassidy, J., Garcia, R., Boggs, M.  (2005).  The SIQ-III test:  Gender issues in literacy. 

            Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 142-148.

 

Clark, K.F.  (2004).  What can I say besides “sound it out”?  Coaching word recognition

            in beginning reading.  The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 440-449.

 

Clay, M. M.  (2000).  Running records for classroom teachers.  Portsmouth NH: 

            Heinemann.

 

Clymer, T.  (1963).  The utility of phonic generalizations in the primary grades.  The

            Reading Teacher, 16, 252-258.

 

DeFord, D.  (1985).   Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction.  Reading

            Research Quarterly, 20(3), 351-367.

 

Flippo, R.  (2003).  Assessing readers:  Qualitative diagnosis and instrucion. 

            Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Fogel, H., and Ehri, L. C.  (2006).  Teaching African American English forms to

            Standard American English-speaking teachers:  Effects on acquisition, attitudes,

            and responses to student use.  Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 464-480.

 

Fox, M.  (2005).  Phonics has a phoney role in the literacy wars.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/08/15/1123958006652.html

 

Fry,  E.  (1977).  Fry’s readability graph:  Clarifications, validity, and extension to level

            17.  Journal of Reading, 21(1977), 242-252).

 

Goodman, D.  The reading detective club:  Solving the mysteries of reading.  Portsmouth,

            NH:  Heinemann.

 

Knipper, K.J., & Duggan, T. J.  (2006).  Writing to learn across the curriculum:  Tools for

            comprehension in content area classes.  The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462-470.

 

McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B.  (2002).  Guided comprehension in action:  Lessons for

            grades 3-8.  Newark, DE:  International Reading Association.

 

McLaughlin, M.  (2003).  Guided Comprehension in the primary grades.  Newark, DE: 

            International Reading Association.

 

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  (2004).  Communication

            Arts Grade Level Expectations.

            http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/GLE/index.html

 

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  (2001).  Curriculum

            Frameworks.

            http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/frameworks/index.html

 

International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English.  (1996). 

            Standards for the English Language Arts.

            http:www.reading.org/resources/issues/reports_learning_standards.html

 

National Reading Panel (2001).  Report of the National Reading Panel:  Teaching

            children to read.

            http://www.nchd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.htm

 

Palmer, C., & Brooks, M.A.  (2004).  Reading until the cows come home:  Figurative

            language and reading comprehension.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

            47(5), 370-379.

 

Pinnell, G. S.  (2004).  Ten principles in literacy programs that work.

            http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/principles.asp

 

Raphael, T. , and Au, K.  (2005).  QAR:  Enhancing comprehension and test taking

            across grades and content areas.  The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221.

 

Ray, K.  (1999).  Wondrous words:  Writers and writing in the elementary classroom. 

            Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of English.\

 

Ray, K.  (2001).  The writing workshop:  Working through the hard parts (and they’re all

            hard parts).  Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of English.\

 

Ray, K.  (2006).  Exploring inquiry as a teaching stance in the writing workshop. 

            Language Arts, 83(3), 238-247.

 

Richek, M. A.  (2005).  Words are wonderful:  Interactive, time-efficient strategies to

            teach meaning vocabulary.  The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 414-423.

 

Stahl, K.  (2004).  Proof, practice, and promise:  Comprehension strategy instruction in

            the primary grades.  The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598-609.

 

Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H.  (2000).  Supporting phonemic awareness development in the

            classroom.  The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130-143.

 

 

Additional resources used by instructor for course preparation:

 

Allington, R. L.  (2002).  Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum:  How

            ideology trumped evidence.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F.  (2004).  Words their way:

 Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (3d ed.).  Upper

Saddle River, NJ:  Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

 

Clay, M. (1991).    Becoming literate:  The construction of inner control.  Portsmouth,

            NH:  Heinemann.

 

Dahl, K.L., Scharer, P.L., Lawson, L.L., Grogan, P.R.  (2001).  Rethinking phonics:

 making the best teaching decisions.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.


Davenport, M. R.  (2002).  Miscues not mistakes:  Reading assessment in the classroom. 

            Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S.  (2000).  Teaching reading in multilingual classrooms. 

Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y.S.  (2001).  Between worlds:  Access to second language

            acquisition.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y.S.  (2004).  Essential linguistics:  What you need to know

            to teach reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, grammar.  Portsmouth, NH: 

            Heinemann.

 

Goodman, K.  (1998).  In defense of good teaching:  What teachers need to know about

            the “Reading Wars”.  York, ME:  Stenhouse.

 

Goodman, Y., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L.  (1987).  Reading miscue inventory:

            Alternative procedures.  New York:  Richard C. Owen.

 

Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L.  (2005).  Reading miscue inventory: 

From evaluation to instruction.  Katonah, NY:  Richard C. Owen.

 

Goodman, Y., & Marek, A.  (1996).  Retrospective miscue analysis:  Revaluing readers

            and reading.  Katonah, NY:  Richard C. Owen.

 

Guthrie, J. L.  (2004).   Teaching for literacy engagement.  Journal of Literacy Research,

 36(1), 1-30.

 

Hughes, M., & Searle, D.  The violent e and other tricky sounds:  Learning to spell from

            kindergarten through grade 6.  York, ME:  Stenhouse.

 

Liang, L., & Dole, J.  (2006).  Comprehension:  comprehension instructional frameworks. 

            The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 742-753.

 

Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M.  (2003).  Best practices in literacy

            instruction (2nd ed.).  New York:  Guilford.

 

Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y.  (2002).  Kidwatching:  Documenting children’s literacy

            development.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Owocki, G.  (2003).  Comprehension:  Strategic instruction for K-3 students. 

            Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Parsons, L.T.  (2006).  Visualizing worlds from words on a page.  Language Arts, 83 (6),

            492-500.

 

Pinnell, G.S., & Fountas, I.C.  (1998).  Word matters:  Teaching phonics and spelling in

            the reading/writing classroom.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Pressley, M.  (2002).  Reading instruction that works:  The case for balanced teaching

 (2nd ed.).   New York:  Guilford.

 

Ray, K.  (2002).  What you know by heart:  How to develop curriculum for your writing

            workshop.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Ray, K.  (2004).  About the authors:  Writing workshop with our youngest writers. 

            Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Sadoski, M.  (2004).  Conceptual foundations of teaching reading.  New York:  Guilford.

 

Sipe, L. , and McGuire, C.  (2006).  Young children’s resistance to stories.  The Reading

            Teacher, 60(1), 6-13.

 

Taylor, D.  (1997).  Many families, many literacies:  An international declaration of

            principles.  Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

 

Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R.  (2006).  Code-switching:  Teaching standard English in

            urban classrooms.  Urbana IL:  National Council of Teachers of English.

McAfee Memorial Library - Online information, links, electronic databases and the Online catalog. Contact the library for further assistance via email or at 800-270-4347.
Career Counseling - The Career Development Center (CDC) provides services for all stages of career development.  The mission of the CDC is to provide the career planning tools to ensure a lifetime of career success.
Park Helpdesk - If you have forgotten your OPEN ID or Password, or need assistance with your PirateMail account, please email helpdesk@park.edu or call 800-927-3024
Resources for Current Students - A great place to look for all kinds of information http://www.park.edu/Current/.


Course Description:
EDE380 Literacy for Early Childhood and Elementary Teachers: Teaching literacy as a lifelong endeavor including reading research, emergent, literacy/reading readiness, writing, listening and speaking in order to prepare students to become competent communicators. Emphasis on the development and organization of an authentic language arts program including the principles and practices which will lead to literacy. Observations in a variety of settings, including early childhood programs and elementary classrooms enable the student to learn about the support of emergent literacy and the delivery of literacy instruction in the primary grades. Prerequisites: EN231 or EDU/EN 325 and admission to the School for Education. To be taken concurrently with Practicum. 6:0:6.

Educational Philosophy:

Instructor’s individual philosophy:

 

The instructor’s philosophy and approach to teaching any professional education course may be summed up in one word:  engagement.

            Engagement means full involvement by both instructor and students.  When someone is engaged, he/she places her/his full attention on the learning task at hand, and is fully “into” the learning activities of the moment rather than thinking about or attending to anything else.  She/he consistently pays attention, watches/listens carefully, and works to make the most of every learning opportunity.  Neither interruptions nor distractions, nor “just getting by”, is permitted.  Learning time is sacred, and important.  The instructor is committed to being fully engaged when she is teaching or working with students and their work, and she expects the same engagement level of students when they are in class or working on assignments.  Indeed, when students later work in the classroom as teachers, the children they will work with deserve nothing less than full engagement.

            The instructor will endeavor to set up the classroom environment to maximize engagement. Some strategies for this will include hands-on activities, cooperative and collaborative learning, a stress on higher level learning outcomes  (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation),  providing “scaffolding” to help students succeed at their highest ability levels,  stressing real-life and cross-disciplinary connections, requiring individual accountability for learning, and facilitating response opportunities for all students.   But engagement is not the instructor’s task alone.  Taking responsibility for making the most of the learning opportunities of the course will also be expected of each student.

 

Linkage to School for Education Conceptual Framework:

 

            The instructor also uses the School for Education’s Conceptual Framework as a guide for instructional decisions.  All courses must help developing educators grow into the roles of Effective School Professional, Reflective Change Agent, and Advocate for Equity and Excellence for All Learners. 

In EDE380, the instructor is first and foremost interested in students becoming effective teachers, and much attention will be paid to various theory-based models that have been found to help children become literate at high levels.  The instructor believes that instruction that is not theory-based, and that focuses only on the lowest levels of learning, is neither effective nor appropriate.  Thus, she always wants to challenge future teachers to reach for the highest levels of good practice for the children they will teach.  Low level learning, or teaching strategies that are not grounded in theory and research, are not good enough for any child.  Literacy should be about constructing meaning.  If that is not occurring in a classroom, then the literacy instruction there is not effective. 

In EDE380, attention will be paid to reflection on what is best practice in literacy, and to a constant assessment of policies and practices that are employed in schools.  The instructor does not believe in perpetuating the status quo in literacy instruction just because it may be mandated, funded, or favored by any group with power, including governments, publishers, corporations, professional associations, or any other entity.  Each teacher must look at all policies and practices in terms of what is good for students and what is good for their literacy learning.  That may differ from what is currently favored in schools, and it may differ from context to context.  There is no such thing as “one size fits all,” even though that may be favored by some because it seems to be the easier or less expensive way.  It is the professional’s job to be constantly questioning, and for making changes when what is happening is not shown to be in children’s best interests.  The instructor does not believe that much of the current “status quo” in public school literacy instruction is working in the best interests of children.  She does not see it as her job to perpetuate such a flawed status quo; she rather sees it as her job to raise questions about it and to work toward changing the situation for the better.  Students in EDE380 should expect to hear many difficult questions raised about what is going on in schools right now, including practices that they will see, and that are accepted, in the school sites where they are having practicum experiences.  The instructor expects students to adopt a questioning, reflective attitude toward literacy practice and to work toward changing current practice when it does not meet children’s needs.

            What it all boils down to is this:  We must be advocates for children.  Children always must come first with us, and that means all children, no matter what their backgrounds.  That is what advocating for equity means.  Advocating for excellence means that we owe it to the children who will be under our care to make sure they have the best opportunity possible to become literate citizens who can participate fully in our society. If there is one theme that should pervade a course such as EDE380, that is it.

Learning Outcomes:
  Core Learning Outcomes

  1. Describe current theoretical models of literacy learning, discuss the implications of those models for literacy instruction, and begin to develop their own grounded theoretical stances on literacy and literacy instruction.
  2. Build a working knowledge of the language and vocabulary used by literacy educators, and use that knowledge to inform their instructional practice.
  3. Competently develop and implement literacy instruction using a variety of frameworks.
  4. Critically observe literacy instruction in school settings across a range of age levels and reflect on the implications of what they observed for their own future practice, incorporating these insights as they develop and implement literacy instruction.
  5. Describe how children acquire literacy and how children's literacy develops as they mature, keeping the emergent nature of literacy in mind as they develop and implement literacy instruction.
  6. Describe and practice using some basic tools used in literacy assessment, including both formal and informal/authentic approaches.
  7. Design instructional plans that address children's literacy needs within contexts that are authentic and meaningful for early childhood and elementary school students.
  8. Reflect upon how they can address the literacy needs of children in authentic contexts while at the same time managing the demands of dealing with mandated literacy programs, state and national standards, and standardized testing.
  9. Explore opportunities for ongoing professional development in the field of literacy education, and begin planning to take advantage of some of those opportunities.


Core Assessment:
Literacy Instructional Modules

 


Assessments for Outcome #1: 



  • Literacy Autobiography
  • Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile—pre and post assessment with reflective pieces
  • Homework assignments from  text

Assessments for Outcome #2: 



  • Completion of the Fox/Hull workbook
  • Homework assignments from texts and supplementary articles
  • Literacy Instructional Modules (Core Assessment)

Assessment for Outcome #3:



  • Literacy Instructional Modules (Core Assessment)

 Assessments for Outcome #4:



  • School Observation Write-Ups
  • Literacy Instructional Modules (Core Assessment)

Assessments for Outcome #5:



  • Literacy development artifact activity
  • School Observation Write-ups
  • Homework assignments from texts and supplementary articles
  • Literacy Instructional Modules (Core Assessment)

Assessments for Outcome #6:



  • Homework assignments from texts
  • Informal reading inventory evaluation activity
  • Miscue analysis project
  • Literacy Instructional Modules (Core Assessment)

Assessment for Outcome #7:



  • Literacy Instructional Module (Core Assessment)

Assessments for Outcome #8:



  • Basal analysis activity
  • No Child Left Behind/Reading First critical analysis
  • Literacy Instructional Modules (Core Assessment)

Assessments for Outcome #9:



  • Professional organization exploration activity
  • Participation in professional development opportunities

Link to Class Rubric

Class Assessment:


1.  Homework assignments (86 points possible; 20% of grade)
 

 

Readings assigned for each week will usually be due each Tuesday at the beginning of class, unless otherwise noted.  For each of the 11 reading assignments from the Vacca text, answer in paragraph form the following three questions covering the reading:

 

1)  What do you think the author's purpose(s) were for writing the chapter(s) or articles?  Why did they write what they did, and what do you think they hoped to accomplish? In other words, what was the point?

 

2)  What idea(s) in the reading struck you as most useful and why?  There is a lot of flexibility possible in your approach to this question.  An idea may strike you because it "resonates" with experience, because it seems particularly reasonable or valuable, or because you can easily picture how you would use it in your future classroom.

 

3)  What do you think is the most problematic or controversial idea in the text?  What are the issues and views involved and why do you see it as problematic or controversial?   If an idea puzzles you or provokes a negative reaction as you read, this would be the place to discuss that, though a negative reaction is not necessary for you to see an idea as problematic or controversial.

NOTE:  Writing that you cannot find a problem or controversy will result in a “0” for this portion.  You need to “dig” and find something.

 

For each of the three questions, you will earn a rating of 2, 1, or 0.  A "2" will result from a well-developed paragraph, with examples.  A "1" will result from a minimally developed paragraph, and a 0 will result from a completely unsatisfactory or missing paragraph.  There are 6 total points possible for each assignment.   

 

As you prepare your work, bear in mind that the instructor has two purposes for weekly homework assignments:  1) to make sure that you read and engage with text assignments each week, and 2) to make sure you are engaging with the texts at a fairly high level of thinking.  If she is satisfied that these things are happening for you, you will earn a high rating on homework assignments.

 

For each of the two multi-chapter readings from the Wilde text, the instructor will provide in advance 5 study questions that you will need to answer fully and turn in on the Tuesdays of the weeks they are due.   They will be scored on a similar basis as was done for the questions for the Vacca reading, with ratings of 2, 1, or 0 possible for each study question.  For each reading, a total of 10 points is possible.

 

There are 11 assignments from the Vacca text (66 total points possible) and 2 assignments from the Wilde text (20 total points possible), for a grand total of 86 points possible.  At the end of the semester, the number of points earned will be compared with the number of points possible, and a percentage will be computed for this portion of the course grade.

 

Important Notice: For all homework, work turned in one class meeting late will have one point deducted; work turned in two class periods late will have two points deducted.  Work turned in later two class meetings after it is due will not be accepted and will not be graded.  

 

 

2.  Fox text (10% of grade)

 

You should complete all of the Fox text by the date given on the schedule.  Fill out all the blanks and do all the exercises, reviews, and tests.  For exercises done on separate paper (as instructed in the text), slip the paper in the book at the appropriate point and staple or paper clip the paper to the page.  Everything must be completed; in fact, this part of the grade will be based entirely upon completion (pages will be counted).  On the due date, a percentage of the total pages that have been completed will be calculated.  If all pages are complete and the book is turned in on time, a 100% will be recorded.  If the book is turned in late, 10% will be deducted for each class meeting that the book is late.  Points will be deducted for any missing pages.  A page will be considered “missing” if any part of that page is incomplete, so please make sure you have filled in every blank and completed every page.

            A few words about the assignment:  There is a varying response from students to this text.  Some actually enjoy it, others can take or leave it but have no problems, others find it annoying but work it through, and a few sometimes are distressed by it.  Be aware of, and reflect upon, the reasons for these feelings, especially if you are one of those who experiences distress. 

There is more than one purpose for this assignment.  Not the least of these is the need for you to really reflect on how instruction about language, such as phonics concepts, should be presented to children.  Think about the pros and cons of teaching such concepts explicitly (as is done in this workbook) versus more implicitly.  This is an issue that is controversial right now (and always really has been).  Just as each preservice teacher is different, and reacts differently to explicit instruction in phonics, so each child is different.  There are many thorny issues when we look at phonics instruction, including the matter of dialects and language variations which can be problematic, and other issues, such as the fact that many phonics "generalizations" are by no means as clear-cut as some published programs try to say they are.  We will make time to discuss issues, feelings, and frustrations as you complete the workbook.  This is an important course outcome.  If you do experience undue frustration, beyond what class discussions can alleviate, see the instructor early and talk it out.  Above all, do not procrastinate on this assignment.  Doing a little each day seems to work better than a lot in a few days.

A second purpose is that teachers do need to have some facility with phonics terminology, no matter what their eventual stance toward explicit vs. implicit phonics instruction turns out to be.  Teachers are expected to be able to talk about these concepts and use them.  The workbook is an efficient way of starting the process of building this critical professional vocabulary.  We are doing it early in the semester, and rather rapidly, so that the vocabulary you learn can then be utilized as we move on to higher level concerns, like how to put together instruction that helps children learn to read and meets their literacy needs.  Even if you believe that all phonics learning should be implicitly acquired through natural texts, you still need to know about phonics concepts so that you can devise good opportunities for implicit learning.  In fact, such a teacher needs to know even more than the teacher who advocates explicit methods, because explicit methods are often laid out and scripted, and implicit teaching requires "thinking on one's feet" and providing scaffolding as needed. 

 

3. Miscue Analysis Project (20% of grade).   

 

This project serves two purposes in the course:  1) You will learn a useful set of assessment procedures that will help you discover children’s reading strengths rather than focusing on what is “wrong” with a child’s reading.  2)  The project in many ways ties together everything we will have learned about literacy up to that point; miscue analysis truly gives you a “window on the reading process.”  Thus, the project is appropriately placed in the second half of the course and serves an activity where you can tie together everything you have learned up to that point.

 Miscue analysis procedures look at the nature of the child’s miscues (a miscue is whenever a child reads something that is different from what is printed in the text) rather than simply counting them or seeing them as "errors."  Then we have the child tell what she/he remembers from what was read (retelling) and analyze that information to understand how the child constructed meaning from the story or passage.  Complete instruction in these procedures will be given in class, and a complete description is provided in the Wilde text.  You will then be practicing the procedures by using them with a child, possibly a child at your practicum site, though with permission, you may complete the procedures with other children than those at your practicum site.  A detailed packet of materials will be provided and gone over in class, and we will practice with the procedures before you do it “for real.”  If you are curious about the procedure before then, see the Wilde text, where procedures are also explained and examples are given.

            A grading rubric for this project will be provided well in advance of the due date, and a percentage grade will be derived from ratings on that rubric.

 

4.  Literacy Instructional Module Drafts (5% of grade)

 

 The Literacy Instructional Module is described in detail below.  This module is a major project of EDE380; in fact, it is the course’s “Core Assessment.”  As such, it should represent your best work and demonstrate your learning.  To that end, the instructor will require that you submit drafts of at least the first four sections of the project (Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4).  The drafts will be graded on timely completion only; that is, if a draft comes in on the requested date, it will receive a 100%.  If a draft comes in late, it will be reduced 10% for each class period it is late.  The instructor will provide plentiful written feedback on these drafts but will only record a completion grade.   An opportunity to turn in the remaining sections of the module early (Sections 5, 6, and 7) for feedback will be available, but no grades or penalties will be assessed for submitting or not submitting that draft; it is entirely up to the student whether he or she wants to take the opportunity for feedback on those sections. 

 

5.  Literacy Instructional Module (Final draft; 40% of grade)

 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE PROJECT

 

Please Note:  The Literacy Instructional Module is the “Core Assessment” for EDE380.

 

            The Literacy Instructional Module documents your experience planning, implementing, and assessing a literacy teaching episode with actual children in your assigned practicum classroom. This teaching episode should be designed to take place during 2-3 visits to your practicum site during the latter half of the semester.  The instruction may take place during regular “literacy” (reading/writing) or Communication Arts time, or it may integrate literacy with a content area such as social studies or science, though literacy must be a major goal of the instruction in these cases.

Plan ahead with your cooperating teacher on the dates, but do not plan to teach the module until after the mid-semester break.  During the first half of the semester, intensive instruction will be provided that is intended to help you have a successful experience and to implement quality instruction.. 

A detailed rubric will be provided in class and discussed at length. The final draft will include both Parts A (Preteaching Elements, Sections 1-4) and B (Post-teaching Elements, Sections 5-7), plus a cooperating teacher’s evaluation, which will be provided and discussed in class.  The project should have seven separate sections, each clearly labeled.  Each section should cover the elements outlined on the project’s rubric. The rubric also has an eighth section that assesses mechanical aspects.  This rubric illustrates linkages between the various sections of the project and both the MoSTEP Standards and the professional standards of the International Reading Association (IRA) and other national professional organizations.

A second rubric, the University’s Core Assessment Rubric, is attached to this syllabus and will be used for University-wide assessment purposes, but not for grading purposes.  It is attached at the end of this syllabus for informational and administrative purposes only.

 

The following description is a brief overview of the project; many more details are on the rubrics, and all requirements will be discussed fully in class.  The project is a modification of the well-known Teacher Work Sample model. 

 

            Each Literacy Instructional Module submitted must have the following seven sections fully developed and clearly labeled:

 

Part A:  PRE-TEACHING ELEMENTS (to be completed prior to teaching the module)

 

1.  Background information on the teaching situation is in a short essay.

 

Here, you will be researching information on the school, the classroom, and the specific students you will teach.  You also will be expected to discuss how school factors, classroom factors, and student factors will affect your planning to teach each specific module.  This section is related to the professional dispositions, Willingness to Do What is Necessary to Help Learners Learn, Maintains Engagement, and Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development.

 

 

2.  Learning Outcomes/Objectives are specified and aligned with standards.

 

In this section you will be writing 2-7 outcome statements specific to the module you will teach, and you will be aligning each outcome with state and national literacy standards (information will be provided in class).  The content of these outcomes/objectives should be negotiated with the practicum cooperating teacher in advance of teaching. This section is related to the professional dispositions, Willingness to Do What is Necessary to Help Learners Learn and Values and Acts Upon Belief in Educational Leadership.

 

 

3.  An appropriate instructional plan to meet the outcomes is presented.

 

You will need to outline, before you teach the module, a plan for instruction that will meet the learning outcomes/objectives you specified in Section #2 above.  You will be planning and developing theory-based literacy instructional activities.  Each module must have at least two theory-based activities in its plan (you may and should include more if needed to meet the specified learning outcomes).  Activities must be designed by the student (NOT the cooperating teacher!) and the two activities must be chosen from the following list of options:

 

  • Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA)
  • Picture Walk
  • Language Experience Approach (LEA), or any variation demonstrated in class
  • KWL or OWL model
  • Semantic/Concept Mapping
  • Venn Diagram (to teach comparison/contrast)
  • Word card/word wall lesson
  • Process writing lesson or Katie Wood Ray inquiry lesson
  • Any writing activity from the “Writing to Learn” article discussed in class
  • Story Impressions/Semantic Impressions Model
  • Any vocabulary activity from the “Words are Wonderful”  article discussed in class

 

All of these activities and models will be fully discussed in class, and also will be demonstrated whenever possible.  The following kinds of activities may be approved for the module, but MUST be approved by the instructor in advance, and must be fully documented:

 

  • Activities suggested in the Vacca text
  • Activities discovered on reputable instructional web sites such as www.readwritethink.org (please be very careful with these; instructor approval is especially important in this case)
  • Activities described in reputable educational journals like The Reading Teacher or Language Arts, or in professional books or other professional sources

 

The following kinds of activities will absolutely not be approved by the instructor:

 

  • Anything  that is premade, “canned”, or part of a published or duplicated literacy program
  • Complete lesson plans someone else wrote, no matter what the source (including the Internet) and no matter how good
  • Exact duplicates of the instructor’s demonstration lessons, though you certainly may implement the frameworks; just vary the readings, topic, content, etc.
  • Ideas that look or sound good but are based on what is “common sense” or “cute” rather than on theory or best practice
  • Lessons that rely very heavily on audiovisuals such as videos, DVD’s, and computer programs.  It is all right to include these if they are high quality, but simply viewing these should NOT constitute the entire instructional input for the learners.  Other types of texts and input must also be incorporated.
  • Lessons created or assembled by your cooperating teacher no matter how good these are; this is to be your own synthesis.  Be sure your cooperating teacher knows this.  Of course you should teach lessons from your cooperating teacher for practice; just don’t use them for this assignment.

 

Once the two theory-based activities are included, you are free to add other things of your choice to your module, but be sure all activities are meaningful and student-centered, and really build literacy.

 

We will organize this section around a standard “Lesson Plan Outline” that has been adopted by the School for Education.  Incorporating this format is required, even though integrating it may seem a bit awkward and redundant at times.  We will discuss the ways to do this sensibly, and we will review the format, in class.      

 

Please note that the Lesson Plan Outline requires, among other things, that you document:

  • The use of technology in instruction; every module should integrate some form of technology in some way
  • Ties to standards (as you will already do in Part 2, above)
  • Accommodations for students with special learning needs; this must be shown in the choice of content, the choice of instructional procedures, and in assessment of student learning.
  • Impact on student learning (which we will also do in Part 6 of the module).

 

It is very important that the above elements be a part of your instruction.  It can be difficult to think about these concerns, but we will discuss them in class, and you must stretch your views of teaching to incorporate them.  Willingness to push one’s comfort zone and go beyond the obvious are important teaching dispositions.  This section is related to Willingness to Do What is Necessary to Help Learners Learn, Maintains Engagement, and Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development.

 

4.  A strategy for assessing the outcomes of instruction is included.

 

This portion describes how you will document whether your students met the outcomes in Section #2 above.  This portion must be filled out in advance, before you teach the module.  It is required that your plan include examples of at least one tangible artifact that will demonstrate and assess student learning, and that you have a method for assessing that artifact, preferably something you can attach to examples of student work.  Non-tangible assessments like “participation” or “observation” will not be sufficient, though such assessments can certainly be a small part of this section.  This section is related to Willingness to Do What is Necessary to Help Learners Learn, Maintains Engagement, and Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development.

 

 

NOTE: Sections 1-4 will be turned in to the instructor in draft form prior to your teaching of the module, and must receive instructor approval before you teach the module.  It also is important that you share your plans with your cooperating teacher prior to teaching.  For this reason, it is recommended that you begin planning well in advance of your expected teaching day(s). 

 

PART B:  POST-TEACHING ELEMENTS  (to be completed after teaching the module)

 

5.  The implementation of the instruction is documented.

 

This part is your anecdotal report of what actually happened when you implemented your plan.  In most cases, you will have to alter your plan “in-flight”; document those alterations in this section.  You will not be penalized for instruction not going according to plan; it is better to make adjustments than to go on with instruction that is not working.  Your grade here will be based on how you reacted to the authentic situation and the amount of detail you provide.  See the grading rubric for more information.  This segment documents the dispositions, Willingness to Do What Is Necessary to Help Learners Learn, and Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development.

 

6.  Student learning is documented.

 

Here, you return to your Outcomes from Section #2 and your Assessment Strategy from Section #4, and you present the evidence of learning that your Assessment Strategy provided.  You will not be penalized if students do not meet the outcomes, but you will be for failure to discuss and account for that.  You will need to clearly show in a visual display (e.g., a graph or chart) and an explanatory narrative your students’ learning based on the data you gathered.  You will be expected to discuss strategies for helping the students meet the outcomes in the future. A representative sample of student work, along with any assessment instruments you created and used to assess the work, should be included and referred to here.  For this section, think in terms of a clear, concise, and relatively straightforward description of what your students learned (or did not learn, if that is the case).  Save reflections about your own learning for Section 7, below. This segment documents the dispositions, Willingness to Do What Is Necessary to Help Learners Learn, and Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development.

 

 

7.  The teacher is able to think reflectively about instruction. 

 

In this final section, you reflect in depth on your own learning as a result of teaching the module.  Specific areas that need to be developed in this short essay are outlined in the grading rubric; all listed areas must be  specifically addressed.  This segment documents the dispositions, Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development, and Values and Acts on a Belief in Educational Leadership.

 

 

8. The work is mechanically acceptable.

 

Professional-looking, correctly written work is required of all teachers; a section delineating areas that will be assessed is included as “Section 8” on the instructor’s grading rubric.  This part of the rubric will be an overall assessment and does not require its own separate, labeled section.  This segment documents the disposition, Respect for Others.

 

 

Please note the following:

 

  • The grade on a late final draft will be reduced by 10%.

 

  • The cooperating teacher’s evaluation must be completely filled out and signed.

 

  • A document verifying authenticity of your work, signed by you and your practicum cooperating teacher, is submitted.  This document will be distributed in class. The final draft will not be graded without the signed authenticity document.

 

  • If work is found to be plagiarized, fabricated, or inauthentic in any way, consequences identical to those outlined under the earlier section, PLAGIARISM, will result. 

 

 

 

6.  MoSTEP Standard 1.2.4 Reflective Piece, to be written in class late in the semester in lieu of a final exam (5% of grade)

 

            On the date of the scheduled final, students will be writing a reflective piece incorporating all three Performance Indicators given under Quality Indicator 1.2.4.  For each of the three Performance Indicators, students will reflect on their learning in EDE380, referring to course projects as artifacts to demonstrate the standards.  Work from other classes may also be referenced, though the main thing that will be evaluated here will be the relationship of the standards with EDE380 learning.  Standard 1.2.4 will be discussed in class during specific class sessions, and will be referred to throughout the semester.  Complete instructions will be given to students prior to the date of writing.  The instructor will use the standard School for Education portfolio rubric to evaluate the reflective pieces, and they will be posted on Foliotek; this will be discussed in class.  This assignment also is related to assessment of the dispositions, Willingness to Do What is Necessary to Help Learners Learn, and Self-Reflection Toward Continual Development.

Grading:

Each of the requirements listed above will result in a percentage grade.  Each of the items will be weighted as indicated in parentheses below.  Each percentage will be weighted and a course average calculated to determine the final course grade.

 

            1.  Weekly homework assignments (20%)

            2.  Fox text completion (10%)

            3.  Timely completion of Literacy Instructional Module Draft, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (5%)

4. Complete Final Draft of Literacy Instructional Module (Parts 1-7) (40%)

Note:  This is the “Core Assessment” for EDE380.

            5.  Miscue Analysis Project (20%)

            6.  MoSTEP Standard 1.2.4 Reflective Pieces relating the three Performance Indicators under Quality Indicator 1.2.4 to learning in EDE 380.  This assignment will be written in class late in the semester in lieu of a final exam (5%).

 

Further details about these projects are provided above, and even more information will be provided in class.

Late Submission of Course Materials:

Policies differ for each type of assignment; each assignment is fully described in the GRADING PLAN section later in this document.

  • No weekly homework will be accepted more than one week (two class periods) late; one point will be deducted for homework that is one class meeting late, and two points will be deducted for homework that is two class meetings late.
  • For the Fox text and for the Literacy Instructional Module drafts, the grade will be reduced by 10% for each class meeting that it is late. 
  • For the Final Draft of the Literacy Instructional Module, late work will be reduced one time by 10%.
  • For the Miscue Analysis Project, which is due on the date of the final, late work will not be accepted or graded.
  • The MoSTEP Standard 1.2.4 Reflective Piece will be written in class on a scheduled date and must be submitted on that date unless there is a documented, excused absence; in that case the instructor will negotiate a due date with the student, but it will not be after the date of the scheduled final.
  • Absolutely no late work of any kind will be accepted after the time of the scheduled final. 

 

Please do not make excuses for late work; rather, professionals act proactively to prevent problems, and when they are completely unavoidable, they present a plan rather than an excuse.  This is related to professional dispositions, particularly Respect for Others and Willingness to Maintain Engagement.    

Classroom Rules of Conduct:

All of the rules stated below are important and relate directly to professional dispositions, especially Respect for Others and Willingness to Maintain Engagement.

 

  • Students are expected to act professionally in the classroom.  That means not monopolizing discussions, and showing courtesy, politeness, and kindness to everyone in the room (including both students and the instructor).  No swearing, coarse language, threatening behavior, shouting, or putdowns of any person or group of persons will be permitted.  The instructor will make one verbal correction, but if the behavior continues, administrators will be consulted as to appropriate consequences.

 

  • During class discussions and lectures, it is important that the person that is speaking (either the instructor or a student who has been recognized by the instructor and is making a contribution related to the topic) has the floor and everyone else’s undivided attention.  Please do not engage in side conversations or any other activity (e.g., electronic messaging, working on homework) that could distract you, other students, or the instructor from the important job of learning and teaching.  

 

  • Please turn off all cell phones, pagers, laptops, and instant messaging devices before entering the classroom.  For activities where laptops are allowed, the instructor will make specific mention of that; otherwise assume that they are to remain closed.  The exception is for students with a documented learning disability, who may use laptops for notetaking only (please, no activities not related to the course during class time).  In those cases, the student is responsible to notify the instructor in advance, and is asked to position her/himself in such a way that the laptop is not distracting to other students or the instructor, either visually or auditorily.  Please mute the volume.

 

  • No calls are to be taken during class time, and no e-mails or instant messaging are permitted.  Please do not try to use the presentation platform in the classroom to check personal e-mail.

 

  • No food or drink is permitted in the classroom, office, or resource areas of the Watson Literacy Center, except for plain water in a container with a tight-fitting lid.  Drinks and food should be consumed during the class break outside the Center.

 

  • Please do not bring children under age 5 into the classroom for any reason.  We love the little ones, but small children are almost always a distraction.  Children age 5 and over may visit in extreme emergencies, but only with advance clearance, and with the understanding that if the child becomes tired or distracts the class in any way, the adult responsible will immediately take the child out of the classroom.  And please, do not bring a child of any age into the classroom if she or he has a potentially communicable illness.

 

  • Please help us keep the classroom clean.  "Police" your area before you leave and throw away any trash.  Do not "stuff" trash containers if they are already full.  Please find another container or take the trash with you.

 

  • Please regularly check your electronic mail.  The instructor will gather e-mail addresses on the first day of class.  Not only does this mean more timely information, but it also it is more economical (the University spends thousands of dollars a year on copying each year that could be used for better things) and better for the environment.  Sometimes you may want to print things out, but other times a document is just as useful (or more so) as an electronic file.

 

Course Topic/Dates/Assignments:

Week

Date

Topics/Assignments

1

August 18-20

 

Topics: 

Course introduction

  • Theoretical orientations to literacy
  • Activity:  The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP)
  • Course expectations
  • Two examples of  student-centered instruction: The DRTA model and the Picture Walk

Reading:  Read syllabus carefully on your own.

Assignment:  Start on Fox text immediately.  Make a plan for timely completion.  Due date is Sept. 10.

2

August 25-27

 

 

Topics:

The Literacy Instructional Module

  • Format and components
  • State standards and grade-level expectations for Communication Arts
  • National standards (IRA/NCTE)
  • Lesson Plan Outline format
  • Exploration of professional resources
  • Semantic/Concept Mapping
  • Language Experience Approach (LEA)

Homework due:  Vacca, Ch. 1 and 2.   Just skim Chapter 1, but do chapter questions for Chapter 2 (as described under GRADING PLAN and as explained in class).  Reminder:  Readings will always be due on Tuesdays, starting this week.

3

September 1-3

 

           

 

 

Topics:

Working with words:  Part 1

  • Sight words
  • Phonics:  implicit and explicit approaches
  • Word card/ word wall lessons
  • Working with learners who have difficulty decoding and recognizing words

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 7 (Note:  We will be skipping around in the Vacca text, so please pay close attention to chapter numbers for each week!)

 

4

Sept. 8-10

 

 

Topics:

Working with words:  Part 2

  • Structural Analysis
  • Context clues
  • Cloze lessons
  • Vocabulary development strategies (“Words are Wonderful” article)
  • Semantic/Story Impressions model
  • Fluency

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 8

Assignment due:  Completed Fox text due Sept. 10.

5

Sept. 15-17

 

 

 

Topic:

Reading Comprehension:  Part 1

  • Levels of comprehension
  • Comprehension strategy instruction
  • Story mapping
  • “Main ideas” and supporting details
  • The KWL model
  • Working with learners who have difficulty comprehending

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 9

 

6

 

Sept. 22-24

 

 

Topics:

Reading Comprehension, Part 2

  • Making inferences
  • Figurative language
  • Non-fiction text structures
  • Graphic organizers
  • Venn Diagrams and T-charts
  • Comparison/Contrast demonstration lesson

Homework due: Questions for  Vacca, Ch. 10

Assignment due:

Draft of Part 1 of Literacy Instructional Module (Background Information) due Sept.24.

7

September 29-Oct. 1

 

Topics:

Multiple Literacies and “New” Literacies

  • Meeting diverse needs with multiple literacies:  print, oral and visual literacies
  • Reading/writing connections
  •  “Process writing” model and writing workshop
  • Learning to write vs. Writing to learn
  • Literacies of the future
  • Integrating technology with literacy instruction

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 11

8

October 6-8

 

(October 12-16 is Fall Recess; classes will not meet that week.)

Topics: 

Literacy assessment:  Part 1

  • Assessment basics
  • Informal/Authentic literacy assessments
  • Making rubrics, scoring guides, and checklists
  • Conferencing
  • Using technology to manage assessment data
  • Adapting assessment for special needs students

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 6

Assignment due:  Draft of Literacy Instructional Module Parts 2 (Outcomes/Objectives) and 3 (Instructional Plan) due October 8.

9

October 20-22

 

 

Topics: 

Literacy Assessment:  Part 2

  • Formal literacy assessment
  • Assessing text difficulty
  • Readability
  • Cloze procedure
  • Assessing the reader
  • Standardized test scores
  • Informal reading inventories
  • IRI analysis activity

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 14

10

October 27-29

 

 

Topics: 

Miscue Analysis: Part 1

  • A window on the reading process
  • Cueing systems:  graphophonic, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic
  • Michaela reads The Relatives Came
  • Preparing for miscue analysis
  • The Reading Interview
  • Gathering Data

Homework due:  Questions for Wilde, Ch. 1-6 (Instructor will provide study questions for these chapters.)

Assignment due:  Draft of Literacy Instructional Module Part 4 (Assessment Plan), due October 29.

11

November 3-5

 

 

Topic:

Miscue analysis:  Part 2

  • Coding sentences for Syntactic Acceptability, Semantic Acceptability, and Meaning Change
  • Coding for Graphic Similarity
  • Literacy Strengths and Concerns
  • Project expectations

Homework due:  Questions for Wilde, Ch. 7-11 (Instructor will provide study questions for these chapters.)

12

November 10-12

 

Topics:

Literacy Development:  Part 1

  • “Letters to Grandpa”: Looking at a child’s literacy development over time
  • Prerequisites for Literacy
  • “Ages and Stages” vs. a continuum of development

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 4.

Assignment due:  Optional draft of Literacy Instructional Module Parts 5, 6, and 7.  Instructor will provide timely feedback on drafts that are submitted by November 12, but cannot guarantee that drafts turned in after that date will be returned soon enough for timely revision.  Submission of this draft is completely up to the student and a grade for completion will not be recorded.  However, this draft is recommended for students who needed major revisions of earlier sections.

13

November 17-19

 

 

 

 

 

Topics: 

Literacy Development:  Part 2

  • Analysis of literacy artifacts activity (in class)
  • Discussion of MoSTEP Standard 1.2.4 Reflective Piece
  • Phonemic awareness:  implicit and explicit approaches
  • Shared reading/shared writing models

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 5

14

Nov. 24

 

(Note:  There will be no class on Nov. 26, Thanksgiving Day.)

 

 

Topics:

Literacy Programs and

Mandates Part 1:

  • Published literacy programs
  • Basal analysis activity
  • “Balanced” literacy programs

Homework due:  Questions for Vacca, Ch. 13

 

15

Dec. 1-3

 

 

Topics:

Literacy Programs and

Mandates Part 2 (Dec. 1):

  • Federal Mandates:  No Child Left Behind
  • State and local mandates
  • Intervention programs:  Reading First, Reading Recovery

 

Reflecting on professional issues (Dec. 3):

  • Revisiting Theoretical Orientations to literacy
  • Retake the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) and write a reflective piece
  • Revisiting Dispositions
  • Revisiting Standard 4
  • Planning for professional development in literacy

Assignment due:  Complete Literacy Instructional Module, final draft due December 3.

16

         Finals Week:

Scheduled Final is Thursday, December 10,

8:00-10:00.  Arrangements for that day will be discussed in class as the term progresses.

 

 

 

Topics:

  • MoSTEP Standard 1.2.4 Reflective Piece:  This will be written during our “final” time.
  • Course conclusion

Assignment due:  Miscue analysis project due December 10.  Absolutely no work of any kind will be accepted after this date and time.

 

 

 

Academic Honesty:
Academic integrity is the foundation of the academic community. Because each student has the primary responsibility for being academically honest, students are advised to read and understand all sections of this policy relating to standards of conduct and academic life.   Park University 2008-2009 Undergraduate Catalog Page 87

Plagiarism:
Plagiarism involves the use of quotations without quotation marks, the use of quotations without indication of the source, the use of another's idea without acknowledging the source, the submission of a paper, laboratory report, project, or class assignment (any portion of such) prepared by another person, or incorrect paraphrasing. Park University 2009-2010 Undergraduate Catalog Page 92
From the course instructor:  You really only hurt yourself when you steal another's work or take short cuts.  Your learning will suffer.  Plagiarism is a serious offense for these reasons, but also because it denigrates the work of those who did put out the effort, and betrays the trust inherent in the student-teacher relationship.  In cases where plagiarism/cheating is discovered, I will certainly do the following:
• The offense will be reported to the Dean of the School for Education and the program coordinator for your program.
• A conference will be held to resolve the matter.
Depending on the student's response to the conference, one of the following will also occur:
• A failing grade for the course will be given.
• A zero for the specific assignment will be given.
• The work must be redone in a timely fashion under conditions that will not allow plagiarism or cheating (i.e., closely supervised).
• The matter will be referred to administrators for a determination of consequences.

Attendance Policy:
Instructors are required to maintain attendance records and to report absences via the online attendance reporting system.

  1. The instructor may excuse absences for valid reasons, but missed work must be made up within the semester/term of enrollment.
  2. Work missed through unexcused absences must also be made up within the semester/term of enrollment, but unexcused absences may carry further penalties.
  3. In the event of two consecutive weeks of unexcused absences in a semester/term of enrollment, the student will be administratively withdrawn, resulting in a grade of "F".
  4. A "Contract for Incomplete" will not be issued to a student who has unexcused or excessive absences recorded for a course.
  5. Students receiving Military Tuition Assistance or Veterans Administration educational benefits must not exceed three unexcused absences in the semester/term of enrollment. Excessive absences will be reported to the appropriate agency and may result in a monetary penalty to the student.
  6. Report of a "F" grade (attendance or academic) resulting from excessive absence for those students who are receiving financial assistance from agencies not mentioned in item 5 above will be reported to the appropriate agency.

Park University 2009-2010 Undergraduate Catalog Page 95
From the course instructor:  More importantly even than all of the above, your attendance is required because it is essential to your learning.  Try not to miss even a single day.  We will cover much material, plus, many activities involve cooperative work and teacher demonstrations that can never really be replaced.  Shoot for perfect attendance, and do what it takes to make that happen.  
         Because I believe attendance is an important component of the course, but also because I know that humans and their lives are not always perfect, I do have an attendance policy of my own for this class.  Here it is:

1.  One absence will be excused, no questions asked.  Do not use this if you can avoid it.  Save it for those unexpected things that come up.

2.  A second absence will be excused for any of the following reasons:
• Minor illness
• Child care problems
• Car trouble, other transportation problems
• Unavoidable doctor/dentist appointments (try hard to schedule otherwise)
• Other cases at the instructor's discretion
Please call and notify the instructor in advance if possible.  Get these kinds of problems dealt with.  Conscientious students (and teachers) always have backup plans.  I will not excuse this type of absence indefinitely--just once.

         If you have a third absence not related to the "unconditional" excuses below, your course grade will be reduced by one letter.  If you have three more, the grade will be reduced by two letters, and so on.  Passing the class implies, at the very least, that you had the contact hours.

3.  The following absences will be excused unconditionally (documentation needed):
• Your hospitalization
• Serious illness of a close family member
• Natural disasters, fires, etc.
• Jury duty
• Military call-up (unexpected)
• Death in the family
• Athletic events for Park athletes on the team
• Professional education conferences (must clear in advance with instructor)

NOTICE TO ATHLETES:  I must have personal notification from you, face-to-face, in advance of absences due to athletic events.  No absences for practices will be excused.  I will check absences against communications from coaches.  Any work that is due on a day you will be gone is due before you go, or you may give it to a fellow student to hand in that day.  If it's not in, the late work policy as stated in this syllabus will be followed.

If you do have to be absent, regardless of the reason, you are responsible for making up the work.  The instructor will not provide notes or tutorials for missed class meetings except for the most unusual sorts of circumstances.  The best strategy is to find a few classmates you can trust early in the semester, exchange phone numbers and e-mails, and make a plan about what to do in case of unavoidable absences.  Note:  For the two excused absences, any assignments are due immediately (the first class period you are back in class) upon your return.  For unexcused absences, the work will be reduced as would any late work (see section below on LATE SUBMISSION OF COURSE MATERIALS as well as specifics under each assignment in the GRADING PLAN section below).

4.  The following absences will never be excused:
• "I have to go to work."  Don't schedule work during class time!  You should also not come late or leave class early for work.
• "We planned a trip/a wedding/an event six months ago."  Don't plan that way.  If class doesn't take top priority, make plans to take the class another semester.
• "I have to get to another class."  Again, don't double-schedule, and allow clearances.
• "My child (or other family member) has an event at school (or elsewhere)."  That's what the one "no questions asked" absence is for.  Plan ahead and save it for that if you know it's coming.  Do not plan on more than one excused absence for events such as these.
• Any absence that will occur repeatedly on a regular basis, no matter what the reason.  Do not plan on the instructor excusing repeated absences.
• Anything else that is really avoidable.  Always check with the instructor first.  Don't assume.

5.  Tardiness policy:  Tardiness is distracting and disrespectful to the class and to the instructor, and many times important information is given during the first few minutes of class.  Promptness is very important for teachers, and is very important to your instructor.  Therefore, the following policy will be followed:
• Tardiness will be recorded if you enter the classroom after the instructor has finished taking roll.  The instructor will take roll promptly at 8:45, so it is best to be in the classroom at least five minutes early.  That means you are in the classroom (not in the halls or in the smoking area).  If just your property (e.g., books, coat) is in the classroom but not you, then you are still tardy.  Tardiness will be determined based upon the time on the instructor's watch, not students' watches.
• Three tardies will equal one absence, no matter what the reason.   The few that are excused should account for the rare occasions when a tardy is unavoidable.  Do NOT plan to be tardy on a regular basis.  The times courses meet are well publicized in advance, so you should make advance arrangements for family and job responsibilities in such a way that you are not late for class.  If you expect those responsibilities to cause tardiness on a regular basis, don't take this course now.
• Since only two absences will be excused, that means that a total of six tardies will lead to a grade reduction of one grade level.  If the student also has absences, however, fewer tardies will be excusable.  For example, a student could receive a grade reduction if she or he has one absence and four tardies.
• Tardiness also extends to returning from class breaks on time.  There will be one ten-minute break around the middle of each class session.  Please return in ten minutes or a tardy will be counted.

These measures may seem strict, but dependability and priority setting are important teacher dispositions, and need to be developed by professionals.  Attendance is related to professional dispositions, particularly Respect for Others and Willingness to Maintain Engagement.


Disability Guidelines:
Park University is committed to meeting the needs of all students that meet the criteria for special assistance. These guidelines are designed to supply directions to students concerning the information necessary to accomplish this goal. It is Park University's policy to comply fully with federal and state law, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding students with disabilities. In the case of any inconsistency between these guidelines and federal and/or state law, the provisions of the law will apply. Additional information concerning Park University's policies and procedures related to disability can be found on the Park University web page: http://www.park.edu/disability .



Rubric

CompetencyExceeds Expectation (3)Meets Expectation (2)Does Not Meet Expectation (1)No Evidence (0)
Synthesis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
Outcomes
2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8 Applicable Project sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
1. Background Information:  All school, classroom, and individual factors are fully described with many specific examples.



2.  Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  Stated learning outcomes represent all learning levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.



3.  Instructional Plan:  Activities are described in much detail, with attachments; the plan is creative, motivating, and completely appropriate to the age level, the content, and the students; there is an obvious stress on authentic meaning construction; technology and/or appropriate visual, auditory, or tactile aids are employed often to enhance instruction.



4.  Assessment Strategy:  Assessment is clearly described in detail; attachments are included and are of high quality; the assessment has clear and manageable procedures and a clear definition of “success”; the assessment provides more than one view of student learning; authentic assessment is stressed; a clear, detailed plan for what to do if students do not succeed in included.



5. Implementation of Instruction:  A detailed description of classroom events with many specific examples is included.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Learning is summarized clearly, completely, and objectively; samples of student work are included; results are related back to outcomes/objectives; factors in the context that may have influenced outcomes are fully accounted for.



 
1. Background Information:  Most school, classroom, and individual factors are described, and some specific examples are included.



2.  Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  Stated learning outcomes represent most levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.



3.  Instructional Plan:  Activities are described in enough detail that the plan can be visualized by the reader; the plan is appropriate to the age level and the content; there is emphasis on authentic meaning construction; technology and/or appropriate visual, auditory, and tactile aids are employed sometimes.



4.  Assessment Strategy:  Assessment is described in enough detail that intentions are clear; attachments are included; the procedures are clear and manageable for the most part; what to do if students do not succeed is addressed.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  A clear description of classroom events with some specific examples is included.



6.  Student Learning/Progress:  Student learning is summarized clearly and objectively; results are related back to outcomes/objectives; factors that may have influenced outcomes are mentioned.



 
1. Background Information: Some school, classroom, and individual factors are described, but the discussion is not complete, and few examples are included.



2.  Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  Stated learning outcomes are limited to only one or two levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.



3.  Instructional Plan:  Activities are described sketchily without detail; the plan is sometimes appropriate to the age level, the content and the students, but not always; no technology or visual, auditory, or tactile aids are employed.



4.  Assessment Strategy:  Assessment is only sketchily described; the procedures are not clear or manageable; what to do if students do not succeed is not addressed.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  There is evidence that instruction was implemented, but there is no real description of classroom events.



6.  Student Learning/Progress:  Student learning is described minimally;  results are incompletely related back to outcomes/objectives; factors that may have influenced outcomes are not mentioned, nor are strategies for helping students meet outcomes if progress was not satisfactory.



 
1. Background Information:  Only one or two school, classroom, and individual factors are mentioned, but the discussion is only a few sentences, and no specific examples are given.



2.  Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  The use of Bloom's Taxonomy is not evident. 3.  Instructional Plan:  It is difficult to tell what the plan actually entails; the plan is definitely inappropriate to the age level, the content, and the students; no technology or visual, auditory, or tactile aids are employed.



4.  Assessment Strategy:  Assessment is not described in a comprehensible way; what to do if students do not succeed is not addressed.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  No description or evidence that the instruction was implemented is presented.



6.  Student Learning/Progress:  No evidence of student learning is presented.



 
Analysis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Outcomes
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Applicable Project Sections:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
1. Background information:  The potential effects of school, classroom, and individual factors on literacy learning are explained in detail; the implications of these factors for planning literacy instruction are fully discussed.



2.  Learning outcomes/objectives: Alignments with national and state standards and grade level expectations are clear, complete, and logical for all objectives; linkages show deep understanding of these standards.



3.  Instructional Plan:  The sequence of learning activities is clear, logical, and workable; the elements of effective instructional planning are all included; there is a definite and effective progression from teacher-directed work to student-directed work; there is a great deal of variety and “texture” in the plan.



4.  Assessment strategy:  The strategy is clearly and logically linked to the learning outcomes/objectives.  All outcomes are assessed in more than one way (triangulation).



6.  Student learning/progress:  Evidence of student learning is organized in a clear, concise way, and all conclusions drawn from that information are sound and supported by the evidence.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  The reflection includes a full discussion of both areas of teaching strength and areas that need strengthening; the reflection accounts for both student success and non-success; the reflection includes many strong examples and convincing classroom evidence.



 
1. Background information:  The potential effects of school, classroom, and individual factors on literacy learning are explained; some implications for planning literacy instruction are discussed with some detail.



2.  Learning outcomes/objectives:  All objectives are aligned with national and state standards and grade level expectations.  All linkages are logical and make sense.



3.  Instructional Plan:  The sequence of learning activities is clear, logical, and workable; the elements of effective instructional planning are all included; there is some variety in the plan.



4.  Assessment strategy:  The strategy is clearly linked to the learning outcomes/objectives.  All outcomes are assessed.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Evidence of student learning is organized in a logical way; all conclusions drawn from that information are supported by the evidence.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  The reflection includes discussion of both areas of teaching strength and areas that need strengthening; the reflection accounts for both student success and non-success.



 
1. Background information:  Several potential effects of school, classroom, and individual factors on literacy learning are mentioned, though not in much detail; implications for planning literacy instruction mentioned but not really discussed.



2.  Learning outcomes/objectives: Some attempt is made to tie objectives to national and state standards and grade level expectations, but linkages are neither logical nor clear.



3. Instructional Plan:  There a only a vaguely discernible sequence or structure to the plan; some elements of effective instructional planning are included; there is no attempt at variety in the plan.



4.  Assessment strategy:  The strategy is linked to some of the learning outcomes/objectives, but the links are not always clear.  Only some outcomes are assessed.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Evidence of student learning is presented, but not in an organized way.  Conclusions are drawn, but not all are supported by evidence.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  Only a brief, general discussion is included; only positive aspects or only negative aspects are discussed.



 
1. Background information:  Only a very brief discussion (one paragraph or less) of the potential effects of school, classroom, and individual factors is included, and no mention is made of implications for planning literacy instruction.



2.  Learning outcomes/objectives:  There is no alignment with national and state standards and grade level expectations.



3.  Instructional Plan:  There is no discernible sequence or structure to the plan; elements of effective instructional planning are not evident; there is no attempt at variety in the plan.



4.  Assessment strategy:  The strategy is not linked to the learning outcomes/objectives.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Incomplete evidence of student learning is presented, and the information is not presented in such a way that conclusions can be drawn.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  Only a summary of classroom events is included, with no discussion of positive or negative aspects.



 
Evaluation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Outcomes
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Applicable Project Sections:  5, 6, 7                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
5. Implementation of Instruction:  Student response to instruction is documented; in-flight modifications were made in all cases when the response to instruction was not as expected; a fully developed rationale for the modifications which includes reasons why the students responded as they did and reasons why those particular modifications were decided upon.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Differences in student learning between proficient and struggling learners as well as differences between other relevant groups are fully described, with specific examples; if progress was not entirely satisfactory, this is clearly documented and several appropriate strategies to help students meet each outcome that was not met are proposed and described in detail.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  The teacher reflected in depth on her/his teaching practice; constructive feedback from the cooperating teacher and the course instructor was used systematically to revise instruction; the teacher made a detailed plan to improve practice and professional growth.



 
5. Implementation of Instruction:  Student response to instruction is documented; in-flight modifications were made in most cases when the response to instruction was not as expected; a rationale for the modifications is included.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Differences in student learning between proficient and struggling learners are described, with some examples; if progress was not entirely satisfactory, appropriate strategies to meet those outcomes are proposed.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  The teacher reflected on her/his teaching practice; some constructive feedback from the cooperating teacher and the course instructor was used to revise instruction; the teacher had some ideas on how to improve practice and professional growth.



 
5.  Implementation of Instruction:  Student response to instruction is documented, but no in-flight modifications were made to instruction.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Differences in student learning are described, but no strategies are proposed if progress was not entirely satisfactory.



7.  Post-teaching reflection:  The teacher reflected briefly on her/his teaching practice, but did not use constructive feedback from the cooperating teacher and the course instructor (or responded to that feedback in a defensive or non-constructive way); there was no concern for improving practice or professional growth.







 
5.  Implementation of Instruction:  There is no documentation of student response to instruction.



6.  Student learning/progress:  Differences in student learning are not mentioned or accounted for.



7. Post-teaching reflection:  The teacher did not show evidence of reflection on her/his teaching practice.



 
Terminology (Knowledge)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Outcomes
2, 5                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of terminology knowledge is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of terminology knowledge of terminology is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of terminology knowledge of terminology is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of terminology knowledge of terminology is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). 
Concepts (Comprehension)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Outcomes
2, 5, 6,7, 8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of concept comprehension is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of concept comprehension is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of concept comprehension is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). Because this project is a holistic, authentic performance task, separate assessment of concept comprehension is not appropriate and is not done.  Because lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are subsumed (included) within higher levels, performance on Knowledge level outcomes may be inferred from performance on the Higher level outcomes (Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). 
Application                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Outcomes
3, 5 (Applicable project sections:  2, 4, 5)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
2. Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  Guidelines for writing good objectives are followed for all outcome statements:



• Each outcome is a complete sentence. (structure)



• The learner is the subject of the sentence, not the teacher. (structure)



• The verb is active and as concrete as possible. (wording)



• The active voice is used. (structure)



• The sentence is clear and concise. (wording)



• Results of instruction are described, not the activities that comprise instruction. (wording)



4.  Assessment strategy:  All assessment attachments (rubrics, tests, checklists, etc.) completely follow guidelines given in class and are soundly developed and usable.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  On the appropriate section of the rubric used by the cooperating teacher to evaluate lesson presentation skills (Section 3), at least half of the ratings were “3”, and there was no rating lower than “2”.



 
2. Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  Guidelines for writing good objectives are followed generally, with only a few occasional non-serious wording problems, but no structural problems.



4.  Assessment strategy:  On assessment attachments, there are a few minor problems related to guidelines given in class, but the attachments are still sound and usable.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  On the appropriate section of the rubric used by the cooperating teacher to evaluate lesson presentation skills (Section 3), all ratings were at least a “2”.



 
2. Learning Outcomes/Objectives:  There are numerous problems with applying the guidelines for writing good objectives, including both wording and structural problems.



4.  Assessment strategy:  There are numerous problems with assessment attachments; they often fail to follow guidelines given in class, and some are unsound and unusable.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  On the appropriate section of the rubric used by the cooperating teacher to evaluate lesson presentation skills (Section 3), at least half of the ratings were “2” and there was no rating lower than “1”.



 
2. Learning Outcomes/Objectives: No outcome statement is written that follows the guidelines for writing good objectives.



4.  Assessment strategy:  All assessment attachments are completely unsound and unusable, and do not use guidelines given in class at all.



5.  Implementation of Instruction:  On the appropriate section of the rubric used by the cooperating teacher to evaluate lesson presentation skills (Section 3), fewer than half of the ratings were “2” and the rest were “1” or “0”.



 
Whole Artifact                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Outcomes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
•There are no noticeable errors in written Standard English.



•The work is written clearly.



•The work is neatly and readably word-processed.



•Formatting is used creatively to make documents clear, easy to read, and attractive.



•The work overall looks clean, neat, professional, and is in an appropriate holder.



 
•There are a few errors in written Standard English, but none really detract from the meaning and quality of the work.



•The work is neatly and readably word-processed.



•Formatting is used to make documents clear and easy to read.



•The work overall looks clean, neat, and is in an appropriate holder.



 
•There are enough errors in written Standard English to detract from the meaning and quality of the work.



•The work is word-processed, but not neatly.



•Little or no formatting is used.



•The work overall has marks, tears, etc., and looks less than  professional.  Pages are stapled but no holder is used.



 
•There are numerous, serious errors in Standard English, so that the work is not generally comprehensible.



•The work is hand-written.



•The work looks very messy.  Pages are loose.



 
Component                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
Outcomes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
All seven project components are present and clearly labeled:



1.  Background information



2.  Learning outcomes/objectives



3.  Instructional Plan



4.  Assessment Strategy



5.  Implementation of instruction



6.  Student learning/progress



7.  Post teaching-reflection







 
All seven project components are present and clearly labeled. One or two of the seven project components are missing or not labeled. More than two of the project components are missing or not labeled. 

Copyright:

This material is protected by copyright
                               and can not be reused without author permission.

Last Updated:8/10/2009 12:28:16 PM